# C_2007183EN.01001801.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-237/07)

(2007/C 183/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dieter Janecek

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a third party whose health is impaired is entitled to the preparation of an action plan even if, irrespective of any action plan, he is in a position to enforce his right to avoid any detriment to his health as a result of the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10 being exceeded, by bringing an action for intervention by the public authority? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a third party whose health is impaired is entitled to the preparation of an action plan even if, irrespective of any action plan, he is in a position to enforce his right to avoid any detriment to his health as a result of the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10 being exceeded, by bringing an action for intervention by the public authority?

1

10

| 2. | If so, is a third party who is affected by such concentrations of particulate matter PM10 as could be detrimental to health entitled to have an action plan drawn up laying down the measures to be taken in the short term to ensure strict compliance with the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, is a third party who is affected by such concentrations of particulate matter PM10 as could be detrimental to health entitled to have an action plan drawn up laying down the measures to be taken in the short term to ensure strict compliance with the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10?

10

10

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, to what extent must the measures included in an action plan serve to reduce the risk of exceeding the limit value and to limit the duration of such an occurrence? Can an action plan be limited, on the principle of ‘one step at a time’, to measures which, while not guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, nevertheless contribute in the short term to improvements in ambient air quality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, to what extent must the measures included in an action plan serve to reduce the risk of exceeding the limit value and to limit the duration of such an occurrence? Can an action plan be limited, on the principle of ‘one step at a time’, to measures which, while not guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, nevertheless contribute in the short term to improvements in ambient air quality?

---

(1)  OJ L 296, p. 55.

1

---